A Question on Sperm Counts

[preyoflove]

Is it also immoral to masturbate so as to eject sperm required for a sperm count?

Thanks.

 

[LittleDeb]

Is it also immoral to masturbate so as to eject sperm required for a sperm count?

Thanks.

Yes it is immoral to masturbate to collect sperm. There are however, moral ways to collect sperm for analysis. I don’t have my references right here to give you a link, but it in involves something called a ‘perforated silicon condom.’ It allows some semen to be deposited in the vagina during the marital act and have some still available for the sperm count. Check into the Catholic Medical Association and the Pope Paul VI Institute for references to medical practices in union with Church teaching. (Sorry I am on the wrong computer to give you a link. Someone else will probably have it.)

It may sound like it is splitting hairs to some, but when deeply investigated there really is a massive difference! If you are interested in that side of the issue, I can provide links there.

God bless you if you are having fertility struggles.

 

[ltbpoe43]

There is also a method where the married couple perform the marital act in the morning and the wife goes to the doctor for an exam and both male sperm and female hormones and fluids are checked and counted to determine optimal issues for concieving.

Check into it or ask about it. Good luck.

 

[Genesis315]

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith actually ruled on this exact issue. It’s in Denzinger’s “Sources of Catholic Dogma” which I unfortunately do not have on hand at the moment. Anyway, the answer was no, you can’t use evil means for a good end.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

I have also wondered about this question, and I think the most moral way to do it would be for the husband and wife to engage in the marital act, and then the semen be collected from inside the wife. Also, there is a method they use for collecting sperm from some animals, I don’t know if a human man would consent to it, involving stimulating the prostate gland via the rectum with some sort of electric current. This causes the male to release semen, apparently. Take your pick. A perforated condom would work as well, I guess.

 

[Jay2]

Has anyone considered that the sample may be required to not be “tainted” by…uh, external/other influences?

There may be legitimate medical reasons here that require a “direct” sample.
I’ll assume that the question has been posted due to fertility problems. Under medical advisement the OP has been requested to provide a sample for testing.

There’s got to be some dispensation/approval to obtain a sample of this particular fluid under non-procreative means for a legitimate medical test… particularly if the test is to answer fertility questions.

(There’s a rule for every OTHER method that releases this particular fluid… why not this one!)

I don’t know if a human man would consent to it, involving stimulating the prostate gland via the rectum with some sort of electric current.

You first… Then convince me!

 

[LittleDeb]

Has anyone considered that the sample may be required to not be “tainted” by…uh, external/other influences?

Please explain how a perforated silicone condom is more “tainted” than a plastic cup in a room full of used pornographic magazines? Especially considering germs are very easily spread on the hands.

There’s got to be some dispensation/approval to obtain a sample of this particular fluid under non-procreative means for a legitimate medical test… particularly if the test is to answer fertility questions.

Why? The current method works just fine. Please ask men who don’t normally masturbate how uncomfortable the immoral means made them feel. The silicone condom is much more natural. I have encountered many non-Catholic couples who were very disappointed to find that they had not been told that there was another method of collection.

There is only one reason behind the “masturbation collection” phenomenon. ** Lab convenience**! Many couples who suffer infertility find the masturbation side of the test very demeaning. They found the moral means much more dignifying to the trouble they were already facing.

 

[Jay2]

Why? The current method works just fine.

What is the “current method”?

Please explain how a perforated silicone condom is more “tainted” than a plastic cup in a room full of used pornographic magazines?

One less step or item of possible contamination/error in obtaining a sample for a medical test?

There is only one reason behind the “masturbation collection” phenomenon. Lab convenience!

No… the obtaining of a sample under controlled circumstances that will yield an accurate result is the reason.

Please ask men who don’t normally masturbate how uncomfortable the immoral means made them feel.

And producing a “sample on demand” in a clinical environment in a closet isn’t hard enough??

 

[LittleDeb]

What is the “current method”?

One less step or item of possible contamination/error in obtaining a sample for a medical test?

No… the obtaining of a sample under controlled circumstances that will yield an accurate result is the reason.

And producing a “sample on demand” in a clinical environment in a closet isn’t hard enough??

Oh, I think I see the concern. Usually the current method is the sample is obtained at home, not at the clinic. It does involve a bit of what one poster called awhile back, “a James Bond covert operation” on the part of the couple. The sample needs to be brought in in a certain, fairly short, time frame. Which is why some couples prefer obtaining their sample through relations at the lab. One couple I know of just got a hotel room near the lab.

Yes putting the condom into the specimen jar is an extra step. So is driving it to the lab rather than walking it down the hall. But when I had to obtain a stool sample for my infant son, it was much easier to bring it from home rather than travel in and wait for a 9 month old to poop! I don’t see us as idiots who cannot be trained in sterile practices. The idea of “controlled circumstances” seems a bit misguided. Like a couple is going to bring in contaminated semen? Or was I going to bring in another child’s stool sample?

While these may be valid concerns the answer certainly does not seem to bring masturbation to a level of necessity.

 

[Jay2]

The idea of “controlled circumstances” seems a bit misguided. Like a couple is going to bring in contaminated semen? Or was I going to bring in another child’s stool sample?

No, it’s not dishonesty… it’s called chain of evidence. Unless someone was to smuggle in a sample, the Doctor can attest that all reasonable precautions were taken, and this sample belongs to this man. You are asking Doctor “X” to test a sample, and sign his name & reputation to the results. It’s only prudent (and probably legally or malpractice insurance required) to have total control over the sample - especially one involving sperm.

I don’t think anyone would mis-use or try to fake the results of a stool sample

 

[astegallrnc]

No, it’s not dishonesty… it’s called chain of evidence. Unless someone was to smuggle in a sample, the Doctor can attest that all reasonable precautions were taken, and this sample belongs to this man. You are asking Doctor “X” to test a sample, and sign his name & reputation to the results. It’s only prudent (and probably legally or malpractice insurance required) to have total control over the sample - especially one involving sperm.

Hmmmm, they didn’t take such precautions when my DH took his sample to the lab. He was given a cup and collected the sample at home.

 

[DailyBread]

Actually the perforated condom method of collection in an act of intercourse is found to be superior for analysis than masturbation:
Dr. Zavos "Clinical Improvements of Specific Seminal Deficincies via Intercourse with a Seminal Collection Device versuses Masturbation. Fertil Sterl 51:190-193, 1989.
So anyone regardless of personal morals should use this method for analysis over masturbation. That doctor isn’t Catholic and has no beefs about masturbation and even he recommends against it as a way to obtain a sample.

 

[sosayi1960]

What is the “current method”?

One less step or item of possible contamination/error in obtaining a sample for a medical test?

No… the obtaining of a sample under controlled circumstances that will yield an accurate result is the reason.

And producing a “sample on demand” in a clinical environment in a closet isn’t hard enough??

I agree with you Jay, obtaining a sample in a Doc’s office is awful. Your comments are funny. great sense of humor. For heaven’s sake, why is this a moral issue? The purpose is to make a baby not a colonoscopy.

 

[mapleoak]

Is it also immoral to masturbate so as to eject sperm required for a sperm count?

Thanks.

Yes. Always and Everywhere.

I don’t know if a human man would consent to it, involving stimulating the prostate gland via the rectum with some sort of electric current.

In collection of semen from animals, the preferred method is to use a teaser female and a false vagina. A.I. breedings are highly dependent on the quality and quantity of sperm available, and electro-ejaculation produces a far less than desirable specimen which is insufficient for reliable breeding purposes.

A perforated condom would work as well, I guess.

I fail to see how a perforated condom is morally acceptable. It doesn’t block all the sperm as a regular condom does. Maybe it only blocks half. This would be acceptable? What if it blocked 3/4’s, or how about 99/100’s? Does it finally become unacceptable when it blocks 100%?

 

[LittleDeb]

I fail to see how a perforated condom is morally acceptable. It doesn’t block all the sperm as a regular condom does. Maybe it only blocks half. This would be acceptable? What if it blocked 3/4’s, or how about 99/100’s? Does it finally become unacceptable when it blocks 100%?

It is not about blocking the sperm. It is about collecting some while still allowing some to be deposited in the vagina. It maintains the procreative act while still collecting a sample.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

Yes. Always and Everywhere.

In collection of semen from animals, the preferred method is to use a teaser female and a false vagina. A.I. breedings are highly dependent on the quality and quantity of sperm available, and electro-ejaculation produces a far less than desirable specimen which is insufficient for reliable breeding purposes.

I fail to see how a perforated condom is morally acceptable. It doesn’t block all the sperm as a regular condom does. Maybe it only blocks half. This would be acceptable? What if it blocked 3/4’s, or how about 99/100’s? Does it finally become unacceptable when it blocks 100%?

I didn’t think the electric shock was used very often.

You have a point, about the condom. I didn’t think about that. I guess the only option would be to collect a sample from the wife after they enjoy the marital embrace.

 

[mapleoak]

It is not about blocking the sperm. It is about collecting some while still allowing some to be deposited in the vagina. It maintains the procreative act while still collecting a sample.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. Whether we call it blocking some or allowing some. A portion of that which could be life giving if allowed to remain is purposefully removed (or blocked) by unnatural means.

 

[mapleoak]

You have a point, about the condom. I didn’t think about that. I guess the only option would be to collect a sample from the wife after they enjoy the marital embrace.

I know the perf condom is commonly mentioned as an alternative, but I have difficulties with them when trying to see how they could be morally justified.

 

[LittleDeb]

You have a point, about the condom. I didn’t think about that. I guess the only option would be to collect a sample from the wife after they enjoy the marital embrace.

I know the best intentions are present in this kind of thinking, but please be careful not to fall into a true splitting of hairs of the process.

The Church teaches that the procreative and unitive must be maintained. While the act of collecting from the wife might be good, it doesn’t mean that the the perforated condom is wrong. Procreation is still present.

 

[LittleDeb]

A rose by any other name is still a rose. Whether we call it blocking some or allowing some. A portion of that which could be life giving if allowed to remain is purposefully removed (or blocked) by unnatural means.

I see where you are going, but with this line of thinking it is easy to fall into scruples.

Every response I am trying to compose keeps getting too graphic. Please understand that the Church teaches about the sacredness of the act, not about the sacredness of each individual sperm.